I found some interesting parallels. I was watching a debate about Jimmy Saville. (For those unaware, Jimmy Saville was in the 1970s and 1980's a hugely popular TV figure who promoted charities, volunteered in hospitals and generally had the image of a lovable 'english eccentric' (he still lived with his mother who he called 'the duchess')). He died in 2010 at 84.
Anyway, it's turned out that he had a thing for teenage girls and used his position in charities and his working in hospitals, prisons, mental hospitals etc to abuse teenagers and other women.
For the record the police are investigating 340 different allegations against him.
Now, what was fascinating about this debate was that everyone (a journalist, a commentator and an editor) all said 'oh yes I knew about the rumours, and I heard about them', but not one of them did anything about it.
It is ironic but the journalist was from the News of the World, and while they were willing to hack into the phones of murdered children, they were apparently unwilling to run or investigate stories of child abuse by a major personality.
Just like Armstrong, everyone knew what was going on, but no one did anything. We hear the same excuses again and again from the media.
Basically, if someone didn't know then frankly they should not be allowed out of the house for being so stupid or willfully ignorant. If they knew and didn't act then they need to acknowledge their own lack of integrity before criticising others.
Benson etc says 'oh it is too tough to take a stand because we will get blacklisted' and yet he never seems to think about trying to prevent a united front - did he talk to Velonews, the guys from the BBC, Eurosport and say 'you know we all know Armstrong is dirty. Can we not present a united front on this matter and on doping and collectively stand up to him, although we are commercial rivals, this is too important an issue for coverage to be driven by the desire for hits and page views'.